Translanguaging In Two-Way Immersion Classsrooms

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rbeb20

International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rbeb20

‘It’s not my Chinese’: a teacher and her students disrupting and dismantling conventional notions of ‘Chinese’ through translanguaging in a heritage language classroom

Ming-Hsuan Wu & Genevieve Leung

To cite this article: Ming-Hsuan Wu & Genevieve Leung (2020): ‘It’s not my Chinese’: a teacher and her students disrupting and dismantling conventional notions of ‘Chinese’ through translanguaging in a heritage language classroom, International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, DOI: 10.1080/13670050.2020.1804524

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2020.1804524

Published online: 10 Aug 2020.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 137

View related articles

View Crossmark data

‘It’s not my Chinese’: a teacher and her students disrupting and dismantling conventional notions of ‘Chinese’ through translanguaging in a heritage language classroom Ming-Hsuan Wu a and Genevieve Leung b

aTESOL & Bilingual Education, Adelphi University, Garden City, USA; bDepartment of Rhetoric and Language, University of San Francisco, San Francisco, USA

ABSTRACT Translanguaging theory re-conceptualizes the linguistic systems and practices of multilinguals as well as multilingual classroom pedagogies. While many studies have documented translanguaging in bilingual classrooms, there is little discussion about how translanguaging can advance the field of heritage language education. This paper shares findings from a qualitative investigation of a Mandarin heritage program in the U.S. enrolling ethnic Chinese students from various Chinese language backgrounds. Drawing on ethnographic fieldnotes and interviews, we argue that the teacher’s flexible use of linguistic resources provided the basis for productive classroom exercises among heritage students who struggled with Mandarin as an imposed identity. Through activities that enabled students to use multiple Chinese languages, students critically examined the diversity of Chinese languages within the U.S. context. This, in turn, facilitated their Mandarin learning in the classroom, as they actively engaged in disrupting and dismantling conventional notions of ‘Chinese.’ The teacher also reflected on her translanguaging practices and the challenges she faced in class. While Mandarin is currently heavily emphasized in the language teaching arenas, translanguaging as a pedagogical heuristic helps create space to liberate the voices of these language minority students who are often left out under the generic category of heritage ‘Chinese’ speakers.

ARTICLE HISTORY Received 12 February 2020 Accepted 15 July 2020

KEYWORDS Heritage language; translanguaging; language maintenance; metalinguistic knowledge

Introduction

Translanguaging theory re-conceptualizes the linguistic systems and practices of multilinguals as well as multilingual classroom pedagogies. Teachers who embrace translanguaging as a pedagogical stance encourage students to draw on their full range of communicative resources to engage with academic materials (García and Sylvan 2011). Researchers have demonstrated that translanguaging as a multilingual pedagogy for teaching and learning provides educators with a tool and framework to create more equitable classrooms (García and Leiva 2014). While many studies have documented translanguaging in bilingual classrooms, there is still relatively little discussion about how trans- languaging can advance the field of heritage language (HL) education, especially in the case where multiple varieties of a language like ‘Chinese’ (co-)exist in the classroom. This paper shares findings from a qualitative investigation of a Mandarin HL program at a public school that enrolled ethnic Chinese students from various Chinese language backgrounds, including Mandarin, Canto- nese, Fujianese, Taishanese, Hakka, or a combination of these languages. Drawing on ethnographic

© 2020 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group

CONTACT Ming-Hsuan Wu mwu@adelphi.edu

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF BILINGUAL EDUCATION AND BILINGUALISM https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2020.1804524

fieldnotes, interviews, and documents, we argue that the teacher’s flexible use of linguistic resources provided the basis for productive classroom exercises among heritage students who struggled with Mandarin as an imposed identity. We analyze the various ways in which the teacher drew on stu- dents’ linguistic repertoires and how students drew on personal and community resources in response to the translanguaging tasks. Through activities enabling students to use multiple Chinese languages, students critically examined the diversity of Chinese languages within the U.S. context. This, in turn, facilitated their Mandarin learning in the classroom as they simultaneously engaged in disrupting and dismantling conventional notions of ‘Chinese.’ The teacher also reflected on her translanguaging practices and the challenges she faced in class. As our data illustrate, it was not easy for the teacher to shift from a Mandarin-only pedagogy to a translanguaging one, and documenting the teacher’s own struggles and concerns about this shift offers key insights into a language teacher’s decision-making process. We argue that while Mandarin is currently heavily emphasized in the language teaching arenas, translanguaging as a pedagogical heuristic helps create space to liberate the voices of these language minority students who are often left out under the generic category of heritage ‘Chinese’ speakers.

Translanguaging as a pedagogical stance

Translanguaging as a theory and pedagogical stance has received growing scholarly attention in the field of language education. Translanguaging represents an approach to language pedagogy that affirms and leverages students’ diverse and dynamic language practices in teaching and learning (Vogel and García 2017, 1). Translanguaging is an umbrella concept that refers to a theory of bilingu- alism, communicative practices, and a pedagogical stance, all of which have the potential to be trans- formative to the way that we understand and approach multilingualism and multilingual education (Mazak 2017).

In a review of recent articles on translanguaging by Poza (2017), in which he reviewed 53 articles published between 1996 and 2014 on their definitions, exemplifications, and implications of trans- languaging, a variety of translanguaging teaching practices that have been discussed and identified by previous research include: 1) translanguaging in verbal interactions; 2) translanguaging in literacy; 3) using multimodal texts (images, symbols, musical videos) to aid in conveying or understanding meanings; 4) using culturally relevant texts. To be specific, translanguaging in verbal interactions include interactions between students in unstructured spaces in the classroom or social spheres (Milu 2013; Li 2013), formal lesson delivery that involves multiple languages (Creese and Blackledge 2010; Palmer et al. 2014), or conversation about academic content during collaborative work (Sayer 2013). Translanguaging in literacy refers to practices such as translating and clarifying texts (Hélot 2011), codemeshing in composition to establish author’s voice or convey complex ideas academically (Cenoz and Gorter 2011; Canagarajah 2011) or consulting texts in multiple languages during research (Martin-Beltrán 2014). While the list is neither exhaustive nor comprehensive, it shows the range of translanguaging practices that were utilized by teachers in and out of the classrooms. Specifically, our discussions of translanguaging practices in our focal HL classroom were built upon Poza’s (2017) identification of these creative language uses by the teachers and students during their inter- actions in various spaces.

The academic and affective benefits of translanguaging pedagogies have been widely acknowl- edged among previous research. To date, most of these benefits were documented through class- room-based qualitative research. Academically, a more flexible and strategic use of students’ multiple languages can increase their class participation, deepen their understanding of the course materials, ease the cognitive demands of the tasks, help students develop their metalinguistic awareness, and make the instructional time more effective. Affectively, translanguaging helps build rapport between teachers and students (even when teachers are at early acquisition stages of stu- dents’ L1s), increase students’ sense of belonging in class, affirm their bilingual/bicultural or multilin- gual/multicultural identities, and open spaces for students to navigate their socio-emotional

2 M.-H. WU AND G. LEUNG

challenges associated with learning academic knowledge (Creese and Blackledge 2010; García, Flores, and Woodley 2012; García and Kano 2014; García and Leiva 2014; García and Kleyn 2016; Palmer et al. 2014; Selzer and Collins 2016; Woodley 2016). In light of these academic and affective benefits for the language minority students, Vogel and García (2017) argue it is socially unjust when bilingual stu- dents are forced to learn or perform academically with less than half of their full linguistic repertoire.

Existing translanguaging research in the U.S. primarily focuses on bilingual or monolingual tea- chers working with English Language Learners (ELLs) or emergent bilinguals on their English in various subjects and of different grade levels. While some research on translanguaging in HLs does exist, most work tends to focus on the learning of Spanish. In either scenario, the use of multiple languages in the classrooms is deemed to be necessary to bring students’ full range of linguistic repertoires to move the classes along. However, it should be noted that the subject matter being taught and learned in English classrooms is often more challenging than what is being taught and learning in the HL classrooms. This is related to the ideology that English is considered critical for aca- demic success and is the language of prestige and power in the U.S., whereas teaching and learning an additional language other than English is not required in most U.S. primary schools. As a result, instructional time, resources, and opportunities are unequally allocated for teaching and learning English and/or a HL among language minority students. We argue that what can be achieved in multi- lingual classrooms involving teaching and learning a societal language (like English) through trans- languaging, as documented in prior research, might not be fully replicated in classrooms involving teaching and learning of a minority language (like ‘Chinese’) for various contextual factors.

‘Chinese’ heritage education: the need for a translanguaging approach

In current socio-political-economic contexts, the term ‘Chinese’ often refers to Mandarin, the official language of People’s Republic of China and Taiwan, and thus teaching Chinese as a HL oftentimes means teaching Mandarin. However, in many Chinese diasporic communities that have experienced extensive periods of immigration from Southern China, residents often speak other varieties of Chinese, such as Cantonese, Fujianese, or Hakka. In fact, the famed Lau v. Nichols case of 1974, which led to bilingual education and more meaningful educational experiences for bilingual students with limited English proficiencies, was driven by Cantonese-speaking Chinese American families who challenged the San Francisco Unified School District, and San Francisco is home to several established bilingual Cantonese–English language programs. Current Chinese HL programs, however, often place ethnic Chinese students, regardless of their HL in the ‘Chinese as a HL’ track that teaches Mandarin and uses Mandarin as the medium of instruction. Such tracking is highly contested because it fails to recognize that these Chinese varieties are not mutually intelligible. Through the linguistic lens of mutual unintelligibility, these varieties are separate languages from Mandarin, but have enough over- lapping in phonology, intonation and particularly in grammar and script, which allow the knowledge of these varieties to become assets for understanding Mandarin. However, sociolinguistically speak- ing, ‘we usually do not speak of Chinese in the plural’ (Ramsey 1987, 17). The fact that standard written Chinese matches most closely to spoken Modern Standard Mandarin than other varieties of Chinese yields statements like, ‘Cantonese is only an oral language’ or ‘words in my dialect cannot be written down,’ which propels Mandarin-as-standard ideologies and discounts and delegi- timizes other varieties of Chinese. Other scholars have stated similarly that in order to uphold a one- nation one-language language ideology, nation states tend to ignore language diversity (Bauman and Briggs 2003; Blackledge 2008), though language educators and researchers have called for heightened awareness of the ways that language teaching of ‘standard languages’ have disenfran- chised communities of speakers of marginalized languages and varieties (Delpit 1996; Lin 2004). In the case of the Chinese context, a comprehensive analysis of language policies involved with the learning of Chinese, foreign languages and minority ethnic languages in the People’s Republic of China since its establishment in 1949, Lam (2005) argues that a multilingual approach is essential given the multilingual linguistic realities of this country. Following Lam, we contend that such an

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF BILINGUAL EDUCATION AND BILINGUALISM 3

approach is also essential for teaching of Chinese in Chinese diasporic communities because many members are multilingual in multiple Chinese varieties; not doing so disadvantages speakers of other non-Mandarin Chinese varieties and discounts their lived experiences.

In fact, growing Chinese HL research has revealed that students speaking other varieties often experienced much alienation and frustration in learning a language that is assumed to be their HL (Wu and Leung 2014, 2015; Wu, Lee, and Leung 2014; Kelleher 2008; Wiley 2008; Wong and Xiao 2010). We argue that a truly translanguaging approach to Chinese HL education has to take into account the linguistic realities in which the heritage students reside and build upon the students’ multilingual knowledge in multiple Chinese varieties. This is in line with Wong and Xiao’s (2010) call to rethink ‘Chinese’ HL pedagogy and the emotional ties HL speakers may have to non-Mandarin varieties, such as Cantonese as well as Li’s (2013) documentation of Cantonese-speaking students’ skillful use of their knowledge of Cantonese in the complementary classrooms in Britain. Specifically, Li argued that ethnic Chinese students’ local linguistic and cultural knowledge (i.e. Cantonese language knowledge and British cultural knowledge) can provide important learning opportunities for Mandarin-speaking teachers, who were usually foreign nationals from China and had lived in Britain for a limited period of time. Li (2013) noted that even while the status of Mandarin is outpow- ering other varieties rapidly among the Chinese diaspora in Britain, Cantonese remains powerful and influential at the local level; along similar lines, Wong and Xiao (2010) also reported that the language hegemony of Mandarin results in non-Mandarin HL speakers to be ‘caught in the webs of power structures and social discourses’ (324). As a result, students’ experiences with and proficiency in Can- tonese, though oftentimes muted, remain particularly relevant in Mandarin HL classrooms.

At a time when the emigration patterns from China to the U.S. has changed with Fujian province surpassing Guangdong province to become the number one emigrate province in China since the mid-1990s (Liang and Morooka 2004), we anticipate that the Chinese HL classrooms will continue to be linguistically diverse and that Chinese HL teachers will have to grapple with challenges different from other HL teachers, who, by and large, work with students whose home languages are at least intelligible to the designated HL. These challenges are also different from ESL teachers or content area teachers working with learners from multiple linguistic and ethnic backgrounds on a societal-dominant language because ESL students may not have any heritage identification or the same strong emotional connections with English. In this paper, we share some translanguaging practices that were documented in a multilingual Chinese HL classroom and their impacts on language minority students’ learning of Mandarin. A closer look at how the teacher went from a Man- darin-only approach to including multiple Chinese languages to facilitate her students’ learning of Mandarin expands the scholarly discussion of what translanguaging practices might look like in a Chinese HL class and the transformative potential of a translanguaging approach, providing new pos- sibilities for us to rethink Chinese HL education.

Research context

Data were from drawn from a larger school ethnography conducted by the first author that investi- gated the school’s culturally relevant pedagogy and its impacts on minority students’ academic success and interracial/interethnic friendships. The school is a K-8 multiracial, multilingual charter school located in a northeastern U.S. city that taught Chinese in the form of Mandarin to all students. At the time of data collection, about 70% of the total 440 students were Asian students and 20% were African American students. Similar to other Mandarin programs in the U.S., the school offers two tracks of Mandarin. Students of Chinese heritage were often placed in Chinese as a HL track with Man- darin as the medium of instruction and non-Chinese students were placed in Chinese as a world language track with English as the medium of instruction. In the 2009–2010 academic year, the 6th to 8th graders had three weekly sessions of Mandarin, but the classes were reduced to 1.5 ses- sions a week during 2010–2011 year due to the elimination of funding from the Foreign Language Assistance Program.

4 M.-H. WU AND G. LEUNG

In this paper we focus on the experiences of Teacher Meihua (a pseudonym) and her multilingual Chinese HL students, whose linguistic repertories included a variety of Chinese languages. As the only HL teacher at school, Teacher Meihua taught roughly 200 K-8 graders (about 40% of the total student population) in the heritage track. According to Meihua, about one-third of her students were from Fujianese-speaking families, one-third from Cantonese-speaking backgrounds, and the remainder from mixed backgrounds (i.e. a combination of Mandarin, Fujianese, Cantonese, Taishanese, Indone- sian, or Vietnamese). She estimated that grades K-2 had a higher percentage of Fujianese speakers, but some classrooms in Grades 3–5 had a higher percentage of Cantonese speakers. Meihua grew up in China and came to the U.S. for higher education in her late twenties. She had lived in the U.S. for more than five years at the time the project was conducted. It was her second year teaching at the school, but it was her first year in charge of all HL classes. Her home language is Teochew, a language she still used to communicate with her parents even after she immigrated to the U.S. She learned Mandarin at school since it is the official language of China and the medium of instruction at all schools that she had attended in China. Later, when she attended college in Guangdong province, she learned Cantonese because, in her own words, Cantonese is essential for living in Guangdong. Meihua was a conscientious, reflective teacher who strived to develop engaging lessons for all of her 200 students from K-8th grades. She wrote different lesson plans per week for all 18 heritage classes that she taught and was often seen using her lunchtime or teaching break to revise her lesson plans. She constantly asked for Wu’s feedback and wanted to learn more about the research in HL education. Meihua was particularly adept at creating age-appropriate arts and crafts activities for her students to learn Mandarin, and Wu observed that these art projects provided a safe space in a Mandarin-only classroom for students from non-Mandarin speaking backgrounds. Meihua also had a strong rapport with her students and she often had students come to her classroom during lunch- time to socialize with her or check out Chinese books from her bookshelves.

Methods

Wu observed Meihua’s heritage classes two hours a week over a ten-month period as part of a larger, school-based ethnography project. Wu conducted extensive participant observations of the Man- darin classes and 15 semi-structured interviews with students and Meihua during the 2010–2011 aca- demic year. Field notes and interview transcriptions went through an iterative process of open coding, initial memos, focused coding, and integrative memos (Creswell 2013; Maxwell 2013).

Leung was invited to observe Meihua’s class during the middle of the research project at a time when Meihua experienced much frustration with her students from non-Mandarin speaking back- grounds. As a Cantonese speaker who learned Mandarin as an additional language in school, Leung’s linguistic trajectory mirrored many of the non-Mandarin students in Meihua’s class. Because of this connection, Wu hoped that Leung could provide insightful feedback from the per- spective of an HL education researcher, educator, and learner. It should be noted that translangua- ging was not the original focus of the school-based research project that Wu conducted. This paper is a result of revisiting Wu’s data in an effort to use a translanguaging lens to (re-)examine the complexity of a multilingual Chinese HL classroom. In particular, we took two excerpts from pre- viously examined field notes to view through a translanguaging lens, which we will identify in the discussion section.

We used ATLAS.ti to organize multiple data sources. For the work presented here, prominent codes identified include ‘students’ linguistic reality,’ ‘students’ learning and not learning Mandarin,’ ‘non-Mandarin Chinese,’ ‘teacher’s concern for translanguaging,’ ‘teacher’s resistance of translangua- ging,’ ‘parents’ concerns,’ and ‘multiple Chinese.’ Both authors conferred carefully on the interpret- ation of data within each code. We used a grounded theory framework (Strauss and Corbin 1990) and narrative analysis (Riessman 2008) to understand the participants’ meaning-making processes and building theory from the data itself. We looked out for instances where different languages were used and switched (e.g. English, varieties of Chinese), pronouns, dialogic voicing, and co-

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF BILINGUAL EDUCATION AND BILINGUALISM 5

construction of narratives in group discussions. Viewing our participants’ words not as objective accounts but as significant recounted events told to us, signifying tellers’ evaluations of their experi- ences and ideological beliefs about language. When we did not agree upon the themes or codes, we went back to the data for another run of the analysis.

Researchers’ positionalities

Wu is an immigrant and is a speaker of Mandarin, Taiwanese Hokkien, and Hakka with extensive experiences teaching Mandarin as a foreign or a heritage language in the United States. Leung is a Cantonese and Taishanese heritage speaker and had learned Mandarin in college. At the time of the research, both of us were graduate students in a language education program in a northeastern U.S. city. As speakers of multiple Chinese languages, we have found value in every variety that we speak, with each one connecting us with members of various communities. With our proficiency in Mandarin and other varieties of Chinese, we have been able to connect with many Chinese HL lear- ners in the U.S. through the totality of our linguistic repertoires. Together, we have published several articles focusing on non-Mandarin Chinese speakers’ experiences and identity development with the hope of drawing more scholarly attention to this group’s experiences, especially since this group is sizable in overseas Chinese communities.

Findings: classroom context

In this section, we present major findings that emerged from the data. To better contextualize the findings, we first present the struggles that students faced when learning Mandarin as an imposed HL from our previous work.

In our other work (Wu, Lee, and Leung 2014; Wu and Leung 2014, 2015), we have reported that learning Mandarin as a HL is highly contested among Chinese students because in reality, many stu- dents did not hear much Mandarin in their linguistic ecologies. As a result, students’ real HL back- grounds are highly related to their performance in the class. Mandarin-dominant students often became the de facto leaders in the classrooms. Throughout different grade levels, it was obvious that Cantonese or Fujianese-dominant students participated in the Mandarin class far less frequently than the Mandarin-dominant students; the former group’s verbal participation was only documented at the word or phrasal level. In student interviews with 7th and 8th graders, 20 out of 26 students identified Mandarin as their least favorite subject, and some characterized Mandarin learning as ‘mostly guessing meaning.’ A few students commented on liking the Mandarin class because they got to do arts and crafts and the teacher is nice. In the following excerpt, two students share the difficulty of being a Cantonese or Fujianese speaker in the Mandarin classroom:

Wu: Is there anything else that you hope the teacher can do to help you learn? April: Well, I am hoping that she [Teacher Meihua] can translate [what she says] in English because I have no

idea sometimes what she says because I am not 100% Chinese, you know. Wu: What do you mean? April: I was born in America and at home we don’t speak Mandarin. We speak Fujianese. Monica: And we speak a different type of Chinese [Cantonese] at home … Most of the time, I don’t understand

what she [the teacher] says.

Toward the end of our conversation, April reiterated her difficulty in the Mandarin only classroom and hoped for more English instruction because ‘It [Mandarin] is not my Chinese.’ (cited in Wu, Lee, and Leung 2014, 28)

We believe April’s quote, which we cited once before in our 2014 work, is worth another look. We argue that April and Monica’s difficulties stemmed not just from the mere difference between their HL and Mandarin, but were also related to their struggles of learning an ascribed HL they did not necessarily identify with. When ethnic Chinese students are assumed to have some or default knowl- edge of Mandarin, their unique needs as non-Mandarin heritage learners are not recognized. Thus, it

6 M.-H. WU AND G. LEUNG

does not come as a surprise to hear that few non-Mandarin heritage students showed interest in con- tinuing learning Mandarin beyond the current school context. Instead, they mentioned they would rather study a language such as French or Spanish that they could at least learn on an equal footing with other non-heritage students entering high school or college. This might be related to the feeling of isolation these students experienced in a Mandarin-only classroom where the ‘one- size-fit-all’ pedagogy was geared toward Mandarin-speaking speakers (Wu, Lee, and Leung 2014; Wu and Leung 2014).

In this current paper we add in Teacher Meihua’s perspective. As a conscientious language teacher, Meihua became more aware of her students’ struggles during her second year of teaching at school. The following fieldnotes captured the challenge she faced when teaching multilingual Chinese HL classes.

When I met with Meihua during lunch break, she brought up a question that she hopes I can give her some advice. The question is how she can better teach her Cantonese-speaking kids. She was very upset when one lower grade student’s auntie came to her and accused her of teaching nothing to this student because she doesn’t speak English in her heritage class. According to the aunt, this student couldn’t understand anything in class because Meihua only teaches the class in Mandarin but the student only understands Cantonese. Meihua doesn’t think the accusation is fair because she has spent so much time planning the lessons. The stu- dent’s parents are thinking about transferring her to the other track so she could learn something. I asked Meihua to give me an estimate of Cantonese-speaking kids in the heritage track, and I was very surprised to hear that probably half of her students across K-8th speak Cantonese. Meihua is struggling with whether or not she should increase her English use in class. However, she also remembers the last coordinator told her that she was not hired to teach kids English, but to teach them Mandarin. Meihua said that she doesn’t care what others tell her to do, but only cares about what would be best for her students to learn Mandarin “in a pro- fessional way.” It seems that the struggles faced by the Fujianese or Cantonese students are greater than I’ve expected. Meihua told me that some of her Fujianese speaking kindergarteners even cried in her class during the first few weeks of the semester!. (Field notes, 10/12/2010)

Meihua’s request came at a time when Wu also noticed the lack of verbal participation and engage- ment among the Cantonese or Fujianese-speaking students in the 7th and 8th grade classrooms. Part of the school ethnography allowed Wu to follow the same group of students to other classes (includ- ing English Language Arts and Social Studies) and examine their classroom participation in classes beyond the Mandarin classroom. Wu documented very few tokens of Mandarin utterances produced by students whose only Chinese exposure at home is Cantonese. For these students, their inability to express themselves in Mandarin made them invisible and inaudible in the Mandarin classroom. However, these same students interacted actively with their peers in small group assignments and classroom discussions in English Language Arts and Social Studies. It seemed that language played a determining factor among many HL students’ participation in the Mandarin classroom. Per Meihua’s request, Wu invited Leung to observe her class and give her suggestions on how to reach out to non-Mandarin HL students.

Leung’s observation confirmed the struggles faced by these students. Her post-observation notes confirmed that the non-Mandarin-dominant students were ‘not on the same page’ with the Man- darin-dominant students on several activities and when the class was reading aloud in Mandarin, these students oftentimes did not participate. One was ‘mumbling words,’ another ‘show disengage- ment by putting her head down while another showed disengagement by not being on task and speaking out of turn, or fiddling with pencils or scribbling.’ However, Leung also noted the great student-teacher rapport and the advantage of Meihua being proficient in both Cantonese and Man- darin. As a result, Leung suggested that Meihua do the following in her future teaching:

(1) Using a contrastive analysis method to explicitly draw connections between different varieties of Chinese or show differences between them to make it clear to the non-Mandarin speaking stu- dents that their real HL is still valuable in helping them understand Mandarin and the knowledge of multiple varieties of Chinese is an asset. Sample contrastive analysis questions include, ‘this is how this word/phrase is said in Mandarin; here is how it’s said in Cantonese. Have you ever heard

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF BILINGUAL EDUCATION AND BILINGUALISM 7

of this before, or heard your parents/family members use it?’ Or ‘This is how X is pronounced in Mandarin. It sounds a little bit like Cantonese word X, doesn’t it?’

(2) When working with students of other linguistic backgrounds, do contrastive analysis by asking them how they might say it in their home language to create a sense of expert feeling among them and make them feel more invested in their language learning in the class (Personal Com- munication, 2/20/2011).

Critical moments where teacher Meihua integrates translanguaging pedagogy

In the following sections, we analyze Teacher Meihua’s reactions to the suggestions as well as the process that she went through in integrating translanguaging pedagogy into her Mandarin class- room. We recognize that the process was delineated ex post facto by ourselves as researchers, but we explicitly chose these key moments as illustrative of the maximal range of what multilingual stu- dents were capable of doing when Teacher Meihua allowed them to more fully draw on the linguistic resources they brought to the classroom. We believe that these critical vignettes clearly capture the ways Meihua incorporated translanguaging practices. We do not mean to call these moments repre- sentative of every classroom interaction Wu observed but aim to show how translanguaging prac- tices have much to offer in revisioning a new future for Chinese HL education.

Translanguaging outside of the Mandarin classroom: learning basic Fujianese from students

Meihua’s first reactions to the suggestions included suspicion, worry, and insecurity. She was worried that using more Cantonese might disadvantage her Mandarin and Fujianese-speaking students. In addition, she thought her not speaking Fujianese might mean her inability to reach out to her Fujia- nese-dominant students. Lastly, she held the belief that a Mandarin language class meant exposing students to Mandarin as much as possible during class time. After several back and forth discussions with Wu, Meihua finally decided to step out of her comfort zone and do something outside of her regular class. The excerpt below documents Meihua’s first step to learn basic Fujianese from her older students beyond her regular Mandarin class.

During lunch break, some 7th graders came back to Meihua’s room to finish their posters. Meihua stood next to a table of four students and was learning how to count from 1-10 in Fujianese from April. April was busy correcting Meihua’s tones while the rest were working on their posters. April was very patient with Meihua and she pro- nounced the numbers in Fujianese several times for Meihua to imitate. Occasionally, Andrew joined in the con- versation and corrected her pronunciations while he was writing down the characters on the poster. Meihua shouted out at one point, “Oh my god! This is so hard.” She felt the tones were particularly difficult and she had to practice the tones several times with the students. Even after much practice, she was still not able to count from 1-10 in Fujianese by herself. Meihua also asked students how to say “sit down,” “book,” “come here,” “look at me” in Fujianese and she was very surprised to hear how different the pronunciations and usages are from Mandarin. For example, for pronouncing “you”, there are two different ways of saying it, depend- ing on the gender, which is different from Mandarin. At first, I thought she just wanted to learn random phrases in Fujianese, but later when there were only two of us, she told me that she wants to learn some classroom com- mands in Fujianese because she has many Fujianese speaking younger learners in her class and she would like to better communicate with them. At the end of our conversation, Meihua shared, “I didn’t know that Fujianese is so different from Cantonese. It’s like a totally different language. I can see why my Fujianese students struggle in my class.” She also thought it’s important for her to feel what her students might feel. (Field notes, 4/14/2011)

We argue what happened above confirms prior translanguaging research on the importance of trans- languaging in social space (Milu 2013) as well as advancing teacher-student rapport (Li and Luo 2017). Since Meihua did not feel comfortable including non-Mandarin Chinese varieties in her Man- darin classroom, lunch time became a good alternative for her to engage students in non-Mandarin varieties. Even though it was an ‘unofficial’ space and time in school, doing so still yielded important results. When Meihua took on a learner role and showed increased interest in learning students’

8 M.-H. WU AND G. LEUNG

home languages, it not only helped her better understand her students’ struggle but it also helped students see there was space at school for their home language and their knowledge is validated, which led to their heightened willingness to engage in their home language and Mandarin. The fol- lowing vignette captured the students’ active participation at this important moment.

Andrew and April are the two students who took the lead to tell Meihua how to say phrases in Fujianese and the other girl, Maggie, who can speak Cantonese, Fujianese, Hoisanese, and Mandarin, joined the conversation by commenting on how to best learn Fujianese if one knows Cantonese. Since she knows Meihua also speaks Can- tonese, she often told Meihua to compare and contrast phrases in Fujianese with Cantonese. She often threw in equivalent phrases in Cantonese to help Meihua learn. While she was doing that, she also explained to me in Can- tonese that this is how she learns Mandarin, that is, through comparing and contrasting it with her more domi- nant language Cantonese. Interestingly, she forgets that I actually don’t speak Cantonese so when she gives me several examples of equivalent phrases in Cantonese and Fujianese, I can only nod my head with a big smile on the face. I could sort of guess what she said because of the context and because she said “compare and contrast” in English. This is the first time that I heard her speaking full sentences in Cantonese and giving me wonderful examples in Mandarin!. (Field notes, 4/14/2011)

It became clear that April, Andrew and Maggie, who were rarely seen participating in the Mandarin classroom, had a vast knowledge base that their teacher could tap into. While Cantonese and Fujianese are not mutually intelligible to Mandarin, they share similarities in syntax and thus students’ knowledge of Cantonese and Fujianese was still very helpful in learning Mandarin. Students were eager to share what they knew when the opportunity was provided and with such an important opportunity, they no longer viewed themselves or were viewed as invisible and inaudible participants.

Including minority Chinese languages in the Mandarin class

In the past, Meihua used mostly Mandarin in her class with some translation to English when she saw students confused or lacked participation from students. However, after she had witnessed the lin- guistic capacity of her ‘quiet’ students during lunch time, she became more willing to include minor- itized Chinese languages in her Mandarin class. Her various ways of including minority Chinese languages in class went beyond the compare and contrast activity that was described earlier. In one class that Wu observed, she started out by asking her older students how to say ‘我會說中文’ (I can speak Chinese) in Fujianese. At first, students’ Fujianese translations varied. She went on to explain the linguistic situation of Guangdong province, highlighting that not everyone from Guang- dong province speaks Cantonese or speaks Cantonese the same way. She posited that a similar lin- guistic phenomenon could be found in Fujian province. Fujianese-dominant students then went on to compare and contrast several tokens in Mandarin and Fujianese to see if their Fujianese trans- lations do sound differently and the Cantonese-dominant and Mandarin-dominant students also joined this discussion by serving as ‘judges.’ It didn’t take long for the students to reach the con- clusion that not everyone from Fujian province spoke the same variety of Fujianese.

As students became excited about learning about the linguistic diversity in China, Meihua asked a student, Yemin, who had attended schools in Fujian for several years, if teachers used Fujianese in the classroom setting in Fujian. Yemin used his cultural knowledge of the Chinese educational context to respond in Mandarin that the language of the classroom was Mandarin/Putonghua. He added that if students spoke Fujianese, they would be scolded (說福州話會被罵的). He also described the para- doxical situation where Fujianese would sometimes ‘slip out’ of their teachers’ mouths unconsciously (可是他們自己有時候會不小心跑出來) or students’ out-of-class times (我們下課的時候照講) despite the Mandarin-only language policy at school. Yemin closed with the reflective commentary, ‘But it’s so strange. Why can’t they co-exist?’ (可是很奇怪阿? 為什麼他們能共存呢?)

Meihua’s willingness to learn students’ home languages and openness to include discussion of different varieties enable her students to develop not only metalinguistic awareness of different Chinese varieties but also critical language awareness that challenged the hegemonic language policy in multilingual societies. We argue that Meihua’s translanguaging pedagogy opened up ‘ideo- logical and implementational spaces’ (Hornberger 2002) for multiple languages in the local ecology,

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF BILINGUAL EDUCATION AND BILINGUALISM 9

and seemed to make an important impact on the language minority students in her Mandarin classroom.

Following the above exchange, Yemin continued to tell the class that he had just learned from a website that Fujianese actually preserves more features of Old Chinese than Mandarin and the two languages belong to two different language families. He was so excited to learn this that he had shared this new piece of information with his friends on the playground during recess. Meihua acknowledged Yemin’s contribution and confirmed that in comparison to Mandarin, many ‘dialects’ are actually closer to Old Chinese in terms of pronunciation. Upon hearing this, many students’ faces brightened, especially those from non-Mandarin speaking backgrounds. This was an important teaching moment when all the students, including those who were observed to be less invested in the class, were ‘hooked’ to the content being taught in the Mandarin classroom. Seeing her stu- dents’ interest in learning more, Meihua explained that sometimes these varieties provided more semantic information than Mandarin in a single vocabulary word. She used the word ‘bed’ as an example from Teochew, her own heritage language. In Teochew, a bed is called 眠床, literally ‘bed for sleeping’, whereas in Mandarin, one calls 床 (‘bed’) without 眠 (‘sleeping’) as the modifier. Stu- dents quickly noted that Fujianese also has the same way of saying ‘sleeping beds.’ For the following ten minutes, the whole class engaged in more structured and conscientious comparison and contrast analysis of Fujianese, Mandarin, Cantonese, and Teochew. Unlike the earlier compare and contrast of random tokens in Mandarin and Fujianese, this time the discussion turned to a collective effort: Fujia- nese-speaking students took turns to offer phrases or words in Fujianese for the rest of the class to guess the meanings and learn the pronunciations.

Toward the end of this activity which had been centered on Fujianese, a Cantonese-speaking student volunteered to offer some random Cantonese words for his classmates to guess the meaning. In this activity, students not only harnessed different ‘Chineses’ to engage one another in metalinguistic conversations, but they also utilized various languages available to them to perform their multilingual identities that are distinct from an imposed Mandarin-only identity. The Fujianese or Cantonese-dominant students were no longer invisible or inaudible learners in the class- room. Meihua’s willingness to accept students’ linguistic diversity in the classroom validates who they are, allows them to develop their repertoires of multiple ‘Chineses’ and creates space for them to pos- ition themselves as multilingual Chinese speakers who know a variety of Chinese languages not just limited to Mandarin. This moment that we were able to capture confirms existing translanguaging pedagogy research on the importance of allowing students to draw upon all their existing language skills. In the case of Mandarin HL education, we argue that translanguaging pedagogy should at least start with an acknowledgement of linguistic diversity in the Chinese diasporic communities so that a translanguaging stance can be enacted by creating spaces for multiple varieties of Chinese in the Mandarin classroom.

Using the Mandarin classroom as a site to challenge linguistic hierarchy

Translanguaging allows teachers, regardless whether they are proficient in their students’ languages, to ‘set up the affordances for students to engage in discursive and semiotic practices that respond to their cognitive and social intentions’ (García and Li 2014, 93). Doing so not only helps students develop metalinguistic awareness, create teacher-student bonding, but also helps challenge the language hierarchies and inequalities (García, Flores, and Woodley 2012; García and Leiva 2014). Fol- lowing the metalinguistic conversation described above during which linguistic minority students actively shared their knowledge in Fujianese or Cantonese with their classmates came an important moment that Meihua created for students to further voice their concerns in learning Mandarin and explore issues related to different varieties of Chinese in their own context.

Seeing how the dynamics of the class interaction changed dramatically, Meihua quickly decided to take a moment to ask students’ interest in learning other varieties of Chinese. She asked students if they would be willing to learn Fujianese or Cantonese if they were offered at school. A Fujianese

10 M.-H. WU AND G. LEUNG

heritage speaker, Sharlene, who rarely participated in the Mandarin class, quickly clapped her hands to show her excitement and approval of this proposal. Yemin was also excited about Fujianese being offered in school, especially because he had recently learned that Fujianese has preserved more Old Chinese features than Mandarin. However, another Fujianese heritage speaker, Yu argued that there is little need for learning Fujianese because in their local Chinatown community, most Chinese res- taurants were owned by Cantonese speakers and thus learning Cantonese would be more useful than Fujianese or Mandarin. Yemin disagreed and the three-way discussion below that ensued among Sharlene, Yemin and Yu gives us a close-up look at how non-Mandarin heritage speakers make sense of the value(s) of non-Mandarin Chinese in their own communities. Examining these dis- courses provides an important basis for challenging the current normative view of seeing Mandarin as the most valuable Chinese variety and for engaging students in discussing important issues related to race, ethnicity, and class in the broader context. Yemin began by situating his view of the perceived utility of Fujianese. In his opinion, in Flushing Chinatown in New York, ‘everyone’ speaks Fujianese, so it is very useful (大家都是說福州話, 很好用的). Yu disagreed, saying Fujianese is only used in ‘black ghost neighborhoods’ and what is actually used in Chinatown is Cantonese (福州話都是用在黑鬼 區

1, 廣東話才是用在Chinatown). Sharlene countered with her own family’s experiences, saying her family members all own restaurants in Chinatown and they all speak Fujianese. She added her own thoughts about language utility and why it is useful to learn Fujianese: ‘the more languages, the more better.2’ Zehua challenged this statement in English, ‘Well, it depends on which language.’ Yu agreed, commenting in Mandarin about the types of jobs Cantonese language ability can yield (‘good jobs’) versus Fujianese, which is only for ‘bad jobs’ (會說廣東話會幫助你找工作, 福州話不 會.福州話都是不好的工作). Since Sharlene continued to insist that ‘the more languages, the better’, Yu asks her in Mandarin, ‘So what if you learn Cantonese?’’ (那如果要你學廣東話呢?). Shar- lene then answers this question without any hesitation. She responded in English, ‘I would love to learn Cantonese, if that’s offered because the more languages, the more jobs you can get.’

This spontaneous, back and forth discussion among students across languages continued until Meihua needed to stop the class and reminded them to get packed and move on to their next class. Sharlene in particular, was still in conversation with other students about the importance of Fujianese until Meihua headed to her and helped her pack her bag. While students were lining up, Meihua told the students that she was impressed by how much Mandarin students used in this dis- cussion, which she believed should be called ‘a debate.’ She also stressed that even though the class might have seemed rather ‘disorganized’ due to its lack of traditional teacher presentation, there was a lot of student learning and participation. She highlighted several times that she was proud of the students and wanted them to feel proud of themselves, too.

Examining these students’ exchanges reveals that Meihua ‘set up the affordances for students to engage in discursive and semiotic practices that respond to their cognitive and social intentions’ (García and Li 2014, 93). While she viewed the activity as not ‘organized,’ what she did actually embo- died core components of translanguaging pedagogy, as defined by García, Johnson, and Seltzer (2017): a stance that believes in students’ diverse language practices as valuable, a design that inte- grates students’ in-school and out-of-school or community language practices with unit plans and assessment driven by students’ ways of knowing and language practices, and a teacher’s ability to make moment-by-moment adjustment to the plans based on students’ feedback. When students were provided with the opportunity to bring in their community knowledge, which was positioned as constructive and valuable to the classroom discussion, we see how linguistic minoritized students become active participants in the class, which in turn enhanced their Mandarin learning.

Furthermore, when classroom activities centered around students’ out-of-school and community language practices, they also allowed teachers to examine students’ understanding of broader social issues related to race, ethnicity, language, and class. As the above student discussion shows, many were acutely aware of the linguistic hierarchies among different varieties of Chinese and some com- ments reflected how language ideologies cannot be separated from current racial hierarchies in the

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF BILINGUAL EDUCATION AND BILINGUALISM 11

U.S. and how they are fraught with potential to be challenged and contested; thus, the classroom can serve as a site where these ideologies can be discussed and unpacked in depth.

Discussion and conclusion

In this paper, we have illustrated the emotional and sociolinguistic complexities that teachers and students encounter in a ‘Chinese’ HL classroom. As can be seen, the HL classroom is full of tensions and potential mismatches in students’ linguistic realities and aspirations. By showing how Teacher Meihua took on the vulnerable role of both teacher and learner to open the floor for her students to showcase the knowledge they brought into her classroom, we argue that this type of pedagogy illustrates the full transformative potential that translanguaging can offer. Her translanguaging peda- gogy opened up not just implementational spaces for multiple Chineses to co-exist in her classroom but also ideological spaces for students to reflect upon their stances towards different languages and speakers of different languages in their own socio-political contexts. While the present study is only based on some students’ experiences in one school in the U.S., it nonetheless still points to the need for those who work with and in Chinese diasporic communities to move away from a ‘Mandarin-only’ pedagogy. Our data have provided evidence that translanguaging as a pedagogical stance gives language educators ample opportunities to honor multiple varieties within the local language ecology, which not only maximizes students’ experiences of learning Mandarin and/or other Chinese varieties, but also using Chinese diasporic spaces to produce counter-hegemonic discourses.

In sum, to create an inclusive learning environment that fosters our diverse Chinese HL learners, we have showcased a perspective that develops a critical language awareness of ‘Chinese.’ This view confronts the imbalance power among different varieties of Chinese, interrogating how and why Mandarin has enjoyed such strong support in HL programs despite the long history of non-Man- darin-Speaking Chinese immigrants in the U.S. (Wu and Leung 2014, 2015; Wu, Lee, and Leung 2014). At a time when Mandarin is heavily emphasized in language teaching and research and is increasingly assumed to be the HL of Chinese diasporic communities, we believe a translanguaging approach has the power to tap into the rich linguistic resources that Chinese diasporic communities offer and develop more effective and engaging pedagogies that help students become more com- petent language users in their own local contexts and beyond. We close this paper echoing and building off the very insightful quote from Yemin: why can’t Chinese languages co-exist – and we would argue, be valorized and thrive – in the Mandarin HL classroom?

Notes

1. 黑鬼, literally translates to ‘black ghost’, is a pejorative term to refer to African Americans in some varieties of Chinese. Similarly, the term 白鬼 ‘white ghost’ refers to Caucasians. These terms are generally considered pejora- tive, but some have argued that the cultural use of ‘ghost’ is used to refer to ‘foreign-ness.’ More on intra- and interracial relationships at this school has been discussed in Wu’s 2017 work.

2. Like many other HL learners in her class, Sharlene was a former ESL student so her English sometimes did not align with standard English.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Notes on contributors

Ming-Hsuan Wu is an Assistant Professor in the School of Education at Adelphi University in New York. Her work seeks to understand teachers’ agentive roles in positively impacting immigrant students’ academic and social lives as well as young people’s agentive roles in contesting dominant discourses on diversity. She has published her work in Inter- national Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, Urban Education, and Journal of Language, Identity & Education.

12 M.-H. WU AND G. LEUNG

Genevieve Leung is an Associate Professor of Rhetoric and Language at the University of San Francisco. She directs the minor in Asian Pacific American Studies and is the academic director of the MA program in Asia Pacific Studies at USF. Her research looks at Chinese American language and cultural maintenance, particularly of varieties of Cantonese and Hoisan-wa. Her work has been published in various journals related to language, identity, and education, teacher edu- cation, and heritage language education.

ORCID

Ming-Hsuan Wu http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2315-2192 Genevieve Leung http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7361-9838

References

Bauman, R., and C. L. Briggs. 2003. Voices of Modernity: Language Ideologies and the Politics of Inequality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Blackledge, A. 2008. Language Ecology and Language Ideology. In Encyclopedia of Language and Education, edited by A. C. P. Martin and H. H. Hornberger, 2nd ed., Vol. 9, 27–40. New York, NJ: Springer.

Canagarajah, S. 2011. “Codemeshing in Academic Writing: Identifying Teachable Strategies of Translanguaging.” Modern Language Journal 95 (3): 401–417.

Cenoz, J., and D. Gorter. 2011. “Focus on Multilingualism: A Study of Trilingual Writing.” Modern Language Journal 95 (3): 356–369.

Creese, A., and A. Blackledge. 2010. “Translanguaging in the Bilingual Classroom: A Pedagogy for Learning and Teaching?” Modern Language Journal 94 (1): 103–115.

Creswell, J. W. 2013. Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing among Five Traditions. 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Delpit, L. 1996. Other People’s Children. New York: The New Press. García, O., N. Flores, and H. Woodley. 2012. “Transgressing Monolingualism and Bilingual Dualities: Translanguaging

Pedagogies.” In Harnessing Linguistic Variation to Improve Education, edited by A. Yiakoumetti, 45–75. Bern: Peter Lang. García, O., S. Johnson, and K. Seltzer. 2017. The Translanguaging Classroom. Leveraging Student Bilingualism for Learning.

Philadelphia: Caslon. García, O., and N. Kano. 2014. “Translanguaging as Process and Pedagogy: Developing the English Writing of Japanese

Students in the US.” In The Multilingual Turn in Languages Education: Opportunities and Challenges, edited by J. Conteh, and G. Meier, 258–277. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.

García, O., and T. Kleyn, eds. 2016. Translanguaging with Multilingual Students: Learning From Classroom Moments. New York: Routledge.

García, O., and C. Leiva. 2014. “Theorizing and Enacting Translanguaging for Social Justice.” In Heteroglossia as Practice and Pedagogy, edited by A. Blackledge, and A. Creese, 199–216. Dordrecht: Springer.

García, O., and W. Li. 2014. Translanguaging: Language, Bilingualism and Education. London: Palgrave Macmillan. García, O., and C. Sylvan. 2011. “Pedagogies and Practices in Multilingual Classrooms: Singularities in Pluralities.” Modern

Language Journal 95 (3): 385–400. Hélot, C. 2011. “Children’s Literature in the Multilingual Classroom: Developing Multilingual Literacy Acquisition.” In

Language Policy for the Multilingual Classroom. Pedagogy for the Possible, edited by C. Hélot, and MÓ Laire, 42–65. Bristol, England: Short Run Press.

Hornberger, N. H. 2002. “Multilingual Language Policies and the Continua of Biliteracy: An Ecological Approach.” Language Policy, 1, 27–51.

Kelleher, A. 2008. “Placements and re-Positionings: Tensions Around CHL Learning in a University Mandarin Program.” In Chinese as a Heritage Language: Fostering Rooted World Citizenry, edited by A. W. He, and Y. Xiao, 239–259. Honolulu, HI: University of Hawai’i, National Foreign Language Resource Center.

Lam, S. L. A. 2005. Language Education in China: Policy and Experience From 1949. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press. Li, W. 2013. “Who is Teaching Whom? Co-Learning in Multilingual Classrooms.” In The Multilingual Turn Implications for

SLA, TESOL, and Bilingual Education, edited by S. May, 167–190. New York: Taylor & Francis. Li, S., and W. Luo. 2017. “Creating a Translanguaging Space for High School Emergent Bilinguals.” The CATESL Journal 29

(2): 139–162. Liang, Z., and H. Morooka. 2004. “Recent Trends of Emigration From China: 1982-2000.” International Migration 42 (2):

145–164. Lin, A. 2004. “Introducing a Critical Pedagogical Curriculum: A Feminist Reflexive Account.” In Critical Pedagogies and

Language Learning, edited by B. Norton, and K. Toohey, 271–267. Cambridge UK: Cambridge University Press. Martin-Beltrán, M. 2014. “What do you Want to say?” How Adolescents use Translanguaging to Expand Learning

Opportunities.” International Multilingual Research Journal 8 (3): 208–230.

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF BILINGUAL EDUCATION AND BILINGUALISM 13

Maxwell, J. 2013. Qualitative Research Design: An Interactive Approach. 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Mazak, C. 2017. “Introduction: Theorizing Translanguaging Practices in Higher Education.” In Translanguaging in Higher

Education. Beyond Monolingual Ideologies, edited by C. M. Mazak, and K. S. Caroll, 1–10. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters. Milu, E. 2013. “Translingual Practices in Kenyan hip hop: Pedagogical Implications.” In Literacy as Translingual Practice:

Between Communities and Classrooms, edited by S. Canagarajah, 104–112. New York, NY: Routledge. Palmer, D. K., R. A. Martínex, S. G. Mateus, and K. Henderson. 2014. “Reframing the Debate on Language Separation:

Toward a Vision for Translanguaing Pedagogies in the Dual Language Classroom.” Modern Language Journal 98 (3): 757–772.

Poza, L. 2017. “Translanguaging: Definitions, Implications, and Further Needs in Burgeoning Inquiry.” Berkeley Education Review 6 (2): 101–128.

Ramsey, S. R. 1987. The Languages of China. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Riessman, C. K. 2008. Narrative Methods for the Human Sciences. Los Angeles: Sage. Sayer, P. 2013. “Translanguaging, TexMex, and Bilingual Pedagogy: Emergent Bilinguals Learning Through the

Vernacular.” TESOL Quarterly 47 (1): 63–88. Selzer, K., and B. Collins. 2016. “Navigating Turbulent Waters: Translanguaging to Support Academic and Socioemotional

Well-Being.” In Translanguaging with Multilingual Students: Learning From Classroom Moments, edited by O. García, and T. Kleyn, 140–159. New York: Routledge.

Strauss, A. L., and J. M. Corbin. 1990. Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded Theory Procedures and Techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.

Vogel, S., and O. García. 2017. “Translanguaging.” In Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Education, edited by G. Noblit. Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acrefore/9780190264093.013.181

Wiley, T. G. 2008. “Chinese “Dialect” Speakers as Heritage Language Learners.” In Heritage Language Education: A new Field Emerging, edited by D. Brinton, O. Kagan, and S. Bauckus, 91–106. New York: Routledge.

Wong, F. K., and Y. Xiao. 2010. “Diversity and Difference: Identity Issues of Chinese Heritage Language Learners From Dialect Backgrounds.” Heritage Language Journal 7 (2): 153–187.

Woodley, H. H. (2016). From Pain to Healing in Language Teacher Education. Modern Language Journal 100(2), 570-572. Wu, M.-H. 2017. “A Critical Examination of Asian Students’ Interracial and Interethnic Friendships at a Multiracial Urban

School.” Urban Education doi:10.1177/0042085917690206. Wu, M.-H., K. Lee, and G. Leung. 2014. “Heritage Language Education and Investment among Asian American Middle

Schoolers: Insights From a Charter School.” Language and Education 28 (1): 19–33. Wu, M.-H., and G. Leung. 2014. “Re-envisioning Heritage Language Education: A Study of Middle School Students

Learning Mandarin Chinese.” Heritage Language Journal 11 (3): 207–223. Wu, M.-H., and G. Leung. 2015. “Contemporary Chinese American Language Maintenance: Perspectives of Youth and

Young Adults in Philadelphia and San Francisco.” Chinese America: History & Perspective 69–74.

14 M.-H. WU AND G. LEUNG